What's So Wrong with Textbooks Anyway?

[Meadowlark]

I'm having a battle inside my head. Coming from a public school teaching background, textbooks are what I know and what feels comfortable to me. But....

 

I started homeschooling with the Charlotte Mason philosophy and have slowly moved towards Classical. But, all of a sudden I'm feeling drawn to more textbooky publishers.

 

It all started with BJU math. I had previously used Singapore and CLE, and both flopped.I love BJU because of the completeness of it. There are colorful charts to show my kids, manipulatives, and anything else under the sun that I could possibly want. It's just all there.

 

So then I started thinking about science. We're using Nancy Larson this year. I feel "meh" about it. It's not colorful (apparently I like color) too scripted for me, and lacks any creativity. So then I looked at BJU's science (or Abeka) and BAM I'm drawn in. There are real pictures in the textbooks, thorough diagrams, the text is written to the student in easy to understand terms (as in Apologia?). And yet "textbooks" get such a bad wrap,.

 

WHY?

 

From what I can tell...it's NOT dry, NOT boring, and NOT pushing just memorization of facts. Lots of fun looking experiments, and an exploration journey that is a lot more than just fill in the blank type of stuff. For those of you that would "no way, not ever" use a publisher like BJU, can you tell me precisely why? Just curious. I feel like there's something wrong with me that I'm drawn to publishers like this,but I'm trying to figure out if it's just me wanting to conform or what. I have an education degree and think of myself as a pretty darn good teacher. But something is holding me back from going for BJU science and maybe one of you will pinpoint it for me!

[freesia]

I may be no help. I was of the mind that science was better with real books and lots if hands on. My middle 2 hated it. A couple of years ago dd1 begged to use a textbook self-paced. I had an ABeka 5th grade science lying around. I gave it to her--she loved it. I put ds2 into ABeka the next year--same reaction. Blew me away. They started talking about what they were learning and wnjoying it . So, yes, textbooks can be good.

 

(Oh, and this is not an ABeka endorsement --we are actually OeC and only used ABeka bc I had it lying around. It could have been any textbook.)

[HomeAgain]

I wouldn't use BJU.  Their "facts" are all over the internet to be made fun of.  Not to mention their ethics are not on par with ours.

 

I like textbooks for certain subjects.  I don't see a problem with them at all as long as they are well written and you don't feel hemmed in by them.  Math textbooks are great. Science textbooks can be great.  History.......well, we've never found a great one.  It doesn't mean it's not out there, but we've never found one.  My kid got attached to a reading textbook this year and happily spends hours with it.

 

Do what works for you.  If textbooks work in your house, by all means go for them!

[Random]

 

From what I can tell...it's NOT dry, NOT boring, and NOT pushing just memorization of facts. Lots of fun looking experiments, and an exploration journey that is a lot more than just fill in the blank type of stuff.

 

I think most people opposed to textbooks complain they only do what you said isn't happening in the quote above.

 

Frankly, I love great textbooks.  We've found our share of dry & boring, but if you find a good one, you can't beat it for completeness and/or ease of use.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Random

[EmilyGF]

I think some people have really bad memory of textbooks, exams, etc. 

 

I don't. I actually read some textbooks on my own in high school (American history, for one - I got an extra, old, textbook from my teacher and studied from it on my own). I liked exams and never found studying for them overwhelming. My dad had always said, "I loved test weeks growing up! It always meant no homework!" and I internalized that, I guess. 

 

Emily

[regentrude]

Good textbooks are wonderful.  When they are pedagogically sound,  teach correct information, have a clean design.

I have not liked many textbooks I have come across  at the below-college level, with the exception of AoPS math texts.

 

I dislike textbooks that

• are visually cluttered with colored boxes, activity sidebars and unnecessary illustrations that serve no pedagogical purpose.
• have little consecutive text and deliver information in sound bites
• have factual errors and incorrect explanations (big problem in science textbooks)
• have a religious bias

 

[73349]

Some textbooks

• omit key ideas in order to simplify for a young audience, often leading to errors later*,
• select facts/statistics/angles to support a publisher's agenda (such as selling to the public schools of a high-population state or, for homeschooling materials, particular subsets of Christians),
• have page designs that encourage skimming or interrupted reading,
• contain out-of-date information (e.g., math textbooks seldom need updating, but many science books should be thoroughly revised every five years),
• present history chiefly as a scarcely differentiated series of battles and presidents/kings, or otherwise select/present material in ways unlikely to draw many readers into the subject,
• fail to make connections between related topics, having discrete chapters written by separate committees,
• .... etc.

In order to avoid these flaws, we teachers can know our material very thoroughly and select books that are excellent at least most of the time, correcting little things as needed; or we can use a variety of books, maybe including some textbooks, and take special note of conflicts in content or approach. Or we can write our own, if we are so called.

 

*Example: Logic of English Essentials declares that English words never end in I, U, V, or J, neglecting to mention that the pronouns I and you are exceptions.The tendency is not limited to textbooks.  I taught sixth-graders who had been instructed that they must never start a sentence with "because" instead of learning the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

Edited March 19, 2016 by whitehawk

[Ellie]

Not all textbooks are bad. Or, to put it another way, using textbooks for specific subjects can be a good, concise way of covering those topics. :-)

 

As a homeschooler with very strong unschooling tendencies, the thought of having my dc sit at desks with piles of textbooks, every day just like school, is not the least bit appealing. I did not envy my friends back in the day whose dc did all ABeka or CLASS or anything else that was a pile of textbooks; I was telling one friend about something we had done, and she said that sounded really great, and she'd love to do something like that, but she needed to finish the textbooks. So there's that. :-)

 

We used more textbooks at the high school level, because you just can't take a field trip to learn biology. 

 

If textbooks work for you, they work for me.

[Meadowlark]

I wouldn't use BJU.  Their "facts" are all over the internet to be made fun of.  Not to mention their ethics are not on par with ours.

 

I like textbooks for certain subjects.  I don't see a problem with them at all as long as they are well written and you don't feel hemmed in by them.  Math textbooks are great. Science textbooks can be great.  History.......well, we've never found a great one.  It doesn't mean it's not out there, but we've never found one.  My kid got attached to a reading textbook this year and happily spends hours with it.

 

Do what works for you.  If textbooks work in your house, by all means go for them!

 

Really? I know a lot of people don't like BJU for a lot of reasons, but I've never heard that their science books are not factual. Can you give more information? What do you mean their ethics are not on par with yours? I am seriously considering BJU science and if there's something I need to know, I'd rather sooner than later. I've googled the heck out of it and find very little.

[mschickie]

As others have said not all textbooks are bad.  I have used the high school BJU texts for history and they really worked well for us ( I supplemented them but that is just me).  We had tried Abeka but I ended up rewriting all the tests because I could not stand them ( I was a history teacher and they drove me crazy, too many dates not enough thought).

 

If you found something you like then use it.  I have always told people you use the curriculum it does not use you.  Textbooks are a tool that work great for some kids and there is nothing wrong with that.

[OneStepAtATime]

Really? I know a lot of people don't like BJU for a lot of reasons, but I've never heard that their science books are not factual. Can you give more information? What do you mean their ethics are not on par with yours? I am seriously considering BJU science and if there's something I need to know, I'd rather sooner than later. I've googled the heck out of it and find very little.

I am wondering with the factual reference if they might be referring to the fact that (I believe) BJU is YEC, which can be fine for some and very not fine for others.  The ethics reference I will let others respond to.  I have heard concerning stories but do not have any direct information.

[OneStepAtATime]

As for whether textbooks are awful or not, many have responded and I will reiterate, a well written and researched and laid out textbook can be wonderful.  A textbook poorly written, poorly researched, poorly laid out is pretty useless.  At first glace it isn't always easy to tell if a textbook is well researched and written, unfortunately, especially if the layout is very appealing.  

[mschickie]

I have never used BJU for science but I think most of the complaints I have seen are from those who believe in evolution or are old earth creationists.  BJU does take the point of view of a young earth creationist stand point.

 

I also know that their history programs can have an anti catholic leaning.  I actually use that to discuss bias in all textbooks and do a comparison and discussion on it.  What is fact, what is opinion and what is conjecture?  It really helps the kids to have a critical eye and have to use some deeper thinking skills.

[Meadowlark]

I have never used BJU for science but I think most of the complaints I have seen are from those who believe in evolution or are old earth creationists.  BJU does take the point of view of a young earth creationist stand point.

 

I also know that their history programs can have an anti catholic leaning.  I actually use that to discuss bias in all textbooks and do a comparison and discussion on it.  What is fact, what is opinion and what is conjecture?  It really helps the kids to have a critical eye and have to use some deeper thinking skills.

Yes, that is what comes to my mind too. You're going to get that with any science curriculum. If there's inaccuracies though, that's another story. Anyone?

[Mergath]

I am wondering with the factual reference if they might be referring to the fact that (I believe) BJU is YEC, which can be fine for some and very not fine for others.  The ethics reference I will let others respond to.  I have heard concerning stories but do not have any direct information.

 

The school clung to some very racist policies until they absolutely didn't have a choice. They didn't let go of their ban on interracial dating until 2000. They also have a history of discouraging sex abuse victims from reporting the abuse, and they have apparently told students that victims of sexual abuse bring it on themselves.

 

There's more, but googling it is making me feel ill. Op, just do a search for "BJU controversies" and you'll most likely find more than enough to make you feel uncomfortable using their materials. 

[Meadowlark]

As for whether textbooks are awful or not, many have responded and I will reiterate, a well written and researched and laid out textbook can be wonderful.  A textbook poorly written, poorly researched, poorly laid out is pretty useless.  At first glace it isn't always easy to tell if a textbook is well researched and written, unfortunately, especially if the layout is very appealing.  

So that leaves me wondering, how is an "average Joe" supposed to recognize a well written and researched and laid out textbook? I assume all of the main publishers are popular for a reason, but beyond that, I would have no idea how to differentiate.

[OneStepAtATime]

Yes, that is what comes to my mind too. You're going to get that with any science curriculum. If there's inaccuracies though, that's another story. Anyone?

If you google Bob Jones University science text inaccuracies you may find some answers. Many complaints seem politically or religiously based, but there are some concerns not directly tied to those particular differences.

[HomeAgain]

BJU describes scientific theories as guesses.  It describes electricity as a mystery. It postulates that there were fire-breathing dragons.   Their high school biology text had a court battle over it because the California university system ruled that it was not nearly comprehensive enough to prepare students for college.  To quote: "the problem is not ... that the creationist view is taught as an alternative to scientific explanations, but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately."  http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/victory-california-creationism-case-001374

 

As far as their ethics, the actual Bob Jones University and I do not see eye to eye on treatment of fellow human beings.  I would not accept a text from their hands.

[OneStepAtATime]

So that leaves me wondering, how is an "average Joe" supposed to recognize a well written and researched and laid out textbook? I assume all of the main publishers are popular for a reason, but beyond that, I would have no idea how to differentiate.

When I was studying to be a teacher I took a class in analyzing textbooks. There are many things I would not have thought to look at. What is ironic is that as we were using our textbook on analyzing textbooks we found a LOT of errors in our own textbook. Even the printing got goofed up. Some data that should have been on one page has gotten flipped and was mashed in with a completely unrelated paragraph. Bottom line, it isn't easy and no textbook will be perfect.

 

I guess my advice is to just do what you are already doing. Ask questions, do some research, find a resource you like and tweak it as needed. I wish I had a better response. Good luck in your quest, OP.

[regentrude]

So that leaves me wondering, how is an "average Joe" supposed to recognize a well written and researched and laid out textbook? I assume all of the main publishers are popular for a reason, but beyond that, I would have no idea how to differentiate.

 

You need a recommendation from somebody with sufficient subject expertise who has examined the textbook and found it correct and well written and pedagogically sound (to judge the latter, teaching experience is beneficial as well.)

 

Which is one of the reasons public school texts are so abysmal: the people who adopt them are not people with subject expertise, but school boards who are persuaded by publishing company reps. That's also why college texts are generally of better quality, because the people adopting them are themselves experts in the respective field, and any text that does not pass their scrutiny will rather quickly die out, i.e. not be adopted anymore.

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by regentrude

[Bay Lake Mom]

I have recently asked myself this same question. Why have I allowed myself to believe that textbooks are all bad? Before I started officially homeschooling I read a lot of books. I met a lot of people who told me that Charlotte Mason's philosophy of education was the best. I should make everything about learning as natural and fun as possible. -- This all sounds great. However, I've learned that the best way to educate my children is by using resources that cater to their way of learning (as well as my way of teaching). Sometimes that even means using a textbook! Using a textbook at home is so different than a traditional school using a textbook. We're able to see when our children are interested and want more, and we can give them extra reading or activities as needed. It's not all do page x, answer questions 2-4 and (temporarily) memorize these facts for a test on Friday.

 

So, we have started using BJU for English (grammar / writing), Spelling, Reading and Math. We will still be using HOD for Bible, history and science. I am tempted to test out BJU for these subjects as well. I am aware of the questionable decisions that they have made in the past. I think they offer a good product, though. I'm done letting people tell me what I should or shouldn't use for our homeschool. I know my family best.

[Bluegoat]

Well, math texts are generally considered acceptable, if they are good, by every teaching philosophy I have seen.

 

I feel I can most adaquatly describe the CM view on textbooks, which I think is a little different that the reasoning some other people have brought up.

 

From Mason's perspective, what happens when a person becomes educated is that they are developing a relationship with an object.  It could be with a text, an idea, a skill, nature, or something man-made like art.

 

But it is possible for someone to be, in a way, fooled, or to have that direct relationship mediated to such a degree that the person really does not any longer have a relationship with the object - they have a relationship with the interpretation of the object that belongs to someone else.  You could read quite a lot about Robert Burns poetry, but if you haven't read his poems you don't have a real relationship to them, and you are even further removed from the ideas he was trying to convey.  And what is worse is that it may be difficult to go back - anything of his you read will to some extent be mediated through other's views.

 

With mathematics Mason did not feel this was such an issue, because the student, in doing the math, is in fact engaging quite directly with the object - he is actually doing mathematics.  In the same way, I think, she would say it is just fine to use a sewing instruction book to lead you through a sewing project.  (Though a lot of the earliest work her students did with math was oral.)

 

With science, I think the question is - what is the object?  Fundamentally the object is nature, what it is, how it works, what laws move it.  As a discipline it has particular methods and skills associated with it.  What is not wanted is for students to mistake factual knowledge about things they have learned from nature itself, from experience of it.  When they are younger, they probably will not really understand that the abstractions of science are not nature but really just models of it, and they may also not really understand that its methods too are not essentially a form of human inquiry.  So - actual engagement with nature is preferred, supported firstly by things like field guides (which is a way are like the math texts) and secondly, direct writings by scientists doing their work.  That is - everything remains joined or contextualized.

 

It isn't until later, when the child's ability to take apart different aspects of thought is developing, (you could say, when they can think about thinking in a more mature way) that really abstract teaching is very helpful.  Once you have some real experience under your belt looking at the paintings of a particular artist, and then other artists, it might be time to learn a bit of art history, and it is only later that it is time to begin to read art criticism or learn about it as a thing in itself.

 

The other thing I would say is that a science book by one author - be it more text like Fabre or one with lots of pictures and activity ideas like Durrell's book, is a bit like having a talk with a person who happens to be an expert.  it's quite rare to find a textbook like that, and in my experience textbooks are really at their best when there is in fact such a person to teach you.  There is a reason university courses don't just give you the text and sets some tests though that seems to be what it is coming to at times.

[Bluegoat]

Also - I second what others have said about BJU, and the same goes for Abeka - I would never use their science texts, however appealing they might seem.

[ondreeuh]

From what I can tell...it's NOT dry, NOT boring, and NOT pushing just memorization of facts. Lots of fun looking experiments, and an exploration journey that is a lot more than just fill in the blank type of stuff. For those of you that would "no way, not ever" use a publisher like BJU, can you tell me precisely why? Just curious. I feel like there's something wrong with me that I'm drawn to publishers like this,but I'm trying to figure out if it's just me wanting to conform or what. I have an education degree and think of myself as a pretty darn good teacher. But something is holding me back from going for BJU science and maybe one of you will pinpoint it for me!

 

I love well-written textbooks. I used to use things like Real Science Odyssey, Mr. Q, and Elemental Science, but it all felt either too much or not enough and it was hard for me to stay consistent. Things have gone much smoother since I switched to using science textbooks. My oldest started using them in 5th grade and my youngest started in 1st grade. The ones we've used have been well-paced with an appropriate level of detail and it's just so much better for us - We read the book, talk about it, go over the questions, maybe try out an activity as described in the book. I do have plenty of supplemental books to go deeper into various topics, but using a textbook as a spine keeps us on track.

 

My youngest is finishing up Calvert 3 and I ditched the social studies textbook after the first quarter. I thought I would hate the reading textbook but it's actually not bad - it's basically an anthology of picture books, along with poetry and a few chapters pulled from novels. The activities are appropriate and the writing models & assignments are fine. My son loves it, and he still reads plenty of harder books on his own.

 

My objection to BJU products is theological & ideological. I have heard other say that they like them.

 

Do what works for you and ignore people who have some other ideal. Buy some cheap textbooks on Amazon and try out a few lessons. You can often get a workbook too. Check out the Closer Look series and Harcourt Science.

[Meadowlark]

Also - I second what others have said about BJU, and the same goes for Abeka - I would never use their science texts, however appealing they might seem.

Why? Why? Why?

 

Besides personal views or thoughts about the company, please give me a good explanation of why not to choose BJU. Based on the actual material, content, and facts.

[justasque]

The school clung to some very racist policies until they absolutely didn't have a choice. They didn't let go of their ban on interracial dating until 2000. They also have a history of discouraging sex abuse victims from reporting the abuse, and they have apparently told students that victims of sexual abuse bring it on themselves.

 

There's more, but googling it is making me feel ill. Op, just do a search for "BJU controversies" and you'll most likely find more than enough to make you feel uncomfortable using their materials. 

 

This.  I knew of BJU before I even had kids, due to their extreme beliefs.  I just could not fathom why a college would make rules about who their students could date, in general, let alone race-based rules.  And it wasn't just a dusty old rule no one actually followed - they actually went to the Supreme Court to defend it.  (The government had revoked their tax-exempt status.)  Such bizarre views are so beyond my comprehension, and so horribly, horribly wrong - evil, even - in my understanding of morality, that I was gobsmacked when I found that using materials from BJU was common in the homeschooling community - specifically the Christian homeschooling community.  I still don't understand it, when there are so many textbooks and living books on the market from which to choose.  While I hope that those running the university have seen the error of their ways by now, it is still too recent for me to be comfortable buying their materials.

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by justasque

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The school clung to some very racist policies until they absolutely didn't have a choice. They didn't let go of their ban on interracial dating until 2000. They also have a history of discouraging sex abuse victims from reporting the abuse, and they have apparently told students that victims of sexual abuse bring it on themselves.

 

There's more, but googling it is making me feel ill. Op, just do a search for "BJU controversies" and you'll most likely find more than enough to make you feel uncomfortable using their materials. 

 

Yeah, I don't even google the info anymore. There is quite a bit.

 

I will not use BJU on ethical grounds.

 

 

 

 

I also do not agree with YEC, or providential history. So there are several companies whose materials I won't use for this reason as well, BJU is just one of them.

[El...]

I really suggest you google about BJU press materials being controversial.  However, as one example, they are virulently anti-Catholic.  When using them during MY home school years, my protestant family became deeply uncomfortable with the unbalanced, bizarre way they handled religious history.  You know that old painting of a huge church Bible, connected to a church lectern by a chain?  As I remember it, they captioned that image as an illustration that the Catholic church "kept" the truth of salvation from the world through the "dark ages".  To hear them tell it, very few people were Christians at all between 230 and 1513. 

 

On the subject of textbooks, lewelma had a great thread about how to prepare students to learn effectively from them, which she viewed as an essential skill.  It was inspiring.

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

When you compare actually going out into nature and doing a real, in depth nature study (which is a huge part of the CM method) to reading about nature from even the best textbook, the textbook is comparatively dry and shallow.  When you read a high quality textbook about physics instead of reading the writings of Feynman or Einstein, you're getting the short end of the stick.  It's not textbooks vs. nothing, it's textbooks vs. living books which are the best quality writings by the best minds in the field that delight and inspire.  That's doesn't mean textbooks never have a place, they can be a good spine or adequate for shallow coverage of a lesser topic.  When you want real depth and breadth you have to bulk up even the best textbooks with living books and related enriching experiences. 

[justasque]

BJU describes scientific theories as guesses.  It describes electricity as a mystery. It postulates that there were fire-breathing dragons.   Their high school biology text had a court battle over it because the California university system ruled that it was not nearly comprehensive enough to prepare students for college.  To quote: "the problem is not ... that the creationist view is taught as an alternative to scientific explanations, but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately."  http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/victory-california-creationism-case-001374

 

As far as their ethics, the actual Bob Jones University and I do not see eye to eye on treatment of fellow human beings.  I would not accept a text from their hands.

 

This.  After carefully reading the court documents, which used examples from BJU (and Abeka) texts to show why they simply weren't accurate or rigorous enough to prepare students for college-level work, I would not use them with my students, even if I didn't have ethical issues with giving them my money.  There is so much more on the market from which to choose that there is no need to go with something so problematic.  

[Mergath]

Why? Why? Why?

 

Besides personal views or thoughts about the company, please give me a good explanation of why not to choose BJU. Based on the actual material, content, and facts.

 

The fact that BJU is proudly racist, further abused victims of sexual abuse, inserts an anti-Catholic viewpoint into their actual teaching materials, and had their science texts proven as completely inadequate in court aren't valid explanations for you? That would be more than enough for me to never give them a penny.

 

But hey, your kids can also learn fun facts about how members of the KKK were actually warriors for morality: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

[regentrude]

When you compare actually going out into nature and doing a real, in depth nature study (which is a huge part of the CM method) to reading about nature from even the best textbook, the textbook is comparatively dry and shallow.  When you read a high quality textbook about physics instead of reading the writings of Feynman or Einstein, you're getting the short end of the stick.  It's not textbooks vs. nothing, it's textbooks vs. living books which are the best quality writings by the best minds in the field that delight and inspire.  That's doesn't mean textbooks never have a place, they can be a good spine or adequate for shallow coverage of a lesser topic.  When you want real depth and breadth you have to bulk up even the best textbooks with living books and related enriching experiences.

 

Sorry - but I do not think reading Einstein's original papers is a very good way to teach physics.

Feynman's writings take a special place because the Feynman Lectures are, in effect, a textbook.

 

Reading the original works is best after a thorough grounding in the basics has been achieved. Expecting a student to master mechanics by reading Newton's writings is a completely unrealistic expectation. So, especially for physics, reading the original works is not a suitable way to learn, and reading the great physicists is rewarding for advanced undergraduates, not before.

 

I fail to understand what the term "living books" means in this content. How are the Feynman lectures, or Einstein's papers from 1905, "living books"?

 

ETA: It seems to be often forgotten that studying physics also encompasses acquiring a skill in problem solving. You would not use original papers to read about math instead of teaching a child to do math. Studying physics includes solving problems, and original papers even by the most brilliant scientists do absolutely nothing to teach this skill.

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by regentrude

[Mergath]

When you compare actually going out into nature and doing a real, in depth nature study (which is a huge part of the CM method) to reading about nature from even the best textbook, the textbook is comparatively dry and shallow.  When you read a high quality textbook about physics instead of reading the writings of Feynman or Einstein, you're getting the short end of the stick.  It's not textbooks vs. nothing, it's textbooks vs. living books which are the best quality writings by the best minds in the field that delight and inspire.  That's doesn't mean textbooks never have a place, they can be a good spine or adequate for shallow coverage of a lesser topic.  When you want real depth and breadth you have to bulk up even the best textbooks with living books and related enriching experiences. 

 

Please explain to me how someone who hadn't read a physics textbook is even going to begin to understand any of Einstein's papers. Not to mention that while Einstein was certainly one of the most brilliant minds to ever live, his papers are really dry, as most scientific papers written for specialists tend to be. If I want my daughter to learn evolution, I'm going to have her read Campbell's Biology, not The Origin of Species, because the former is fascinating, and the latter would put any high school student straight to sleep and wouldn't provide anything close to a thorough overview of the topic.

 

Good textbooks are not "the short end of the stick." They're a necessary and often enjoyable step in almost every field of study. 

 

The CM method is interesting, but the ideas break down once you get beyond early elementary.

[Mergath]

I fail to understand what the term "living books" means in this content. How are the Feynman lectures, or Einstein's papers from 1905, "living books"?

 

They're old. After spending years on this forum, I've come to understand that living books = books more than fifty years old, even if they're so boring and dry as to be unreadable and completely inaccurate.

[Meadowlark]

The fact that BJU is proudly racist, further abused victims of sexual abuse, inserts an anti-Catholic viewpoint into their actual teaching materials, and had their science texts proven as completely inadequate in court aren't valid explanations for you? That would be more than enough for me to never give them a penny.

 

But hey, your kids can also learn fun facts about how members of the KKK were actually warriors for morality: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

Another thought to consider is that BJU updates it's texts frequently. The 3rd and 4th science textbooks for example were just updated this year.  I find it quite hard to believe that such flagrant remarks (as you quoted in your second paragraph) could possibly be included, but hey, that's why I'm here. I guess I'd have to order one, seriously read through the entire text, and see. Then I'll come back and report/quote, for anyone else who feels drawn to them but is still unsure. After all, how can anyone really know unless they have the new updated text in front of them? And, I'm aware of what you consider to be a "valid explanation", but the beauty of homeschooling is that we all can make choices that best suit us and our family.

[Meadowlark]

I'm going to wade in here and people can obviously disagree if they want, but this is coming from a person who had a huge bee in her bonnet about BJU- the actual University, back in the day when I was in university myself. Having friends who left BJU, actually in fact fled BJU, I had a very condescending opinion about their separate walkways for men and women, their modesty declarations, having floors separated by gender and all sorts of other things that some college students like to get riled up about, because they do not have pressing concerns like jobs, rent, or buying food for their kids. I argued bible versus with their defenders and was basically just an all around anti-BJU person, and probably a bit of an ass myself as I had, for some egotistical reason, this desire to even engage in these debates. But sometimes I think college students just like to have things to be angry about. I wasn't going there. It wasn't a public school? What did I care? I had a stint with the phase of perpetual outrage and I will just say I am glad I have outgrown that phase. Or at least I have tried. :)

 

Then I left college and entered the real world and didn't give BJU a second thought. UNTIL homeschooling came. As I started seeing their name battered around, I had a visceral reaction. I was NOT going to use their books. Oh wait, and Abeka....well, wait. The judgmental church school down the road uses their program.....I can't use that either. But wait. Pearson. They seem like a bunch of corrupt leeches as well, bent on milking every cent from the public school system while simultaneously wrecking it, and as another poster mentioned, the "public school texts" aren't really ones to throw stones at glass houses. They're all controlled by idealogical boards with agendas too. Hmmmm.... so what's left for some subjects? 

 

So the conclusion I came to was I could either stand on my ideological high horse and dismiss just about every textbook around, because there is always SOME reason you can find to disagree with the author, publisher, or what have you. And if you want to, that's fine. But sometimes, you'd dismiss something out of hand. And if you think it's going to work for YOUR kid, and you don't really give a fig about what some California court thinks (I mean even though why wouldn't you as California is a always a beacon of unbiased, spectacular governmental choices) then use what calls you. If you end up not liking it, it's not like you ruined your kid because you used a BJU text. I mean they aren't suddenly going to segregate your household or make their siblings start wearing long skirts and walking on a different sidewalk because they read a BJU text. If you want to try it, try it. You've obviously hit a fork in the road so why live in wonder? Life is to short to let other people's hang ups be your own. If they don't want to use it that's absolutely their prerogative as is yours to do what you will. I totally get voting with your wallet, but it sounds like you DON'T have a problem with BJU. If you've done the searches and looked at the samples and are happy with what you see, I would try it. It's not like a cult in a box that's going to pop out and convert your family members at night. :) At least I hope it's not or I will be in trouble. 

 

I am going to be using a BJU text this fall. Our co-op says it's an AP level text the way they present it. So I am going to try it because it was the best option for what we needed in our homeschool. How the mighty have fallen, right? Maybe I've mellowed with age, but this homeschooling gig can be hard enough without me digging for someone else's reasons not to use a text. 

I loved this. Thanks for sharing :-) I absolutely will use what calls me.

[Mergath]

Another thought to consider is that BJU updates it's texts frequently. The 3rd and 4th science textbooks for example were just updated this year.  I find it quite hard to believe that such flagrant remarks (as you quoted in your second paragraph) could possibly be included, but hey, that's why I'm here. I guess I'd have to order one, seriously read through the entire text, and see. Then I'll come back and report/quote, for anyone else who feels drawn to them but is still unsure. After all, how can anyone really know unless they have the new updated text in front of them? And, I'm aware of what you consider to be a "valid explanation", but the beauty of homeschooling is that we all can make choices that best suit us and our family.

 

For many of us, it isn't only a question of what's included in the textbooks, but whether we want to financially support such a repugnant company. Some white supremacist organization, for example, could publish a science textbook that's the best publication to come out in a century, but I'm certainly not giving them my money. 

 

And with something like BJU, which has such firmly entrenched racist and sexist views, they may not state these things as explicitly in their newer textbooks, but it will still be there, albeit more subtle.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Mergath

[justasque]

Why? Why? Why?

 

Besides personal views or thoughts about the company, please give me a good explanation of why not to choose BJU. Based on the actual material, content, and facts.

 

OP, you might get something out of reading the expert witness testimony from the UC court case.  The experts do a good job of explaining why the texts in question are not adequate to prepare students for higher level work, in some cases comparing them to more suitable texts.  Links to the expert witness testimony documents are here. 

[8filltheheart]

Why? Why? Why?

 

Besides personal views or thoughts about the company, please give me a good explanation of why not to choose BJU. Based on the actual material, content, and facts.

Here is a copy of a post I wrote yrs ago.

 

In addition to their view as a company, their texts are extremely biased. I enrolled our oldest in a local American Gov't class that was using the BJU text out of desperation when my dad died while visiting at our house and we were moving my sick mom in to live w/us. It lasted only about 5 days. My ds kept coming to me over and over pointing out how biased the text was.

 

The one that sticks out in my memory is near the beginning of the text where they are talking about religious freedom and the Great Awakening and how it was twarted by a wall of Catholicism due to the Quebec Act. NO WHERE does it teach what the Quebec Act is nor explain the derogatory comment. It is easy for me assume why......the Quebec Act granted religious freedom to Catholics. (Prior to the Quebec Act of 1774 Catholics couldn't participate in the gov't w/o renouncing their faith: The Act allowed public office holders to practice the Roman Catholic faith, by replacing the oath sworn by officials from one to Elizabeth I and her heirs with one to George III that had no reference to the Protestant faith. This enabled, for the first time, French-speaking Canadians to legally participate in the affairs of the provincial government without formally renouncing their faith. It also reestablished the collection of tithes, which had been stopped under the previous administrative rules, and it allowed Jesuit priests to return to the province.http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Quebec_Act

 

The Quebec Act of 1774 summary pertaining to Catholicism

Religious freedom was guaranteed for the colony's Roman Catholic majority, and a simplified Test Oath, which omitted references to religion, enabled them to enter public office conscientiously......Others felt it was an attempt to deal more fairly with the colony's French Catholics, perhaps with a view to ensuring their loyalty in the event of troubles with the American colonies, and it effectively guaranteed the survival of the ancien régime society in North America

http://www.thecanadi...s=A1ARTA0006592

 

So religious freedom and the Great Awakening were thwarted by granting Catholics religious freedom.....but it is simply presented as those evil Catholics suppressed religious freedom.

In terms of why I don't like textbooks, it is bc I prefer really digging into subjects and reading whole books on topics written by individual authors who love their subjects. I absolutely disagree that it has anything to do with the age of the books. :) But I don't follow anyone's book lists. I do think that many of the pre-fab type studies out there do rely on non-copyrighted material (which means old ;)) I create our own reading lists. Edited March 20, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[Ellie]

 

 

I fail to understand what the term "living books" means in this content. How are the Feynman lectures, or Einstein's papers from 1905, "living books"?

 

 

I wish people wouldn't use that term. It is something near and dear to Charlotte Mason's heart but has no real meaning to people outside of the CM sphere.

[marisolstice]

Haven't read the replies but here are my thoughts:

 

I will never, ever use anything published by BJU because I don't want my children influenced by people who believe interracial dating is wrong.

I will probably never use A Beka because that's all I had from K-10th grade (when I escaped to community college) ;), and I would be so bored using it with my kids for another who-knows-how-many years. My poor mom stuck to it with her first five kids and was so happy to switch to the fun stuff that started to appear in the 90s. I remember being so excited to start new A Beka books every year, just to realize it was the same old info again...even the same bolded words and definitions. And it's so easy to learn material for tests but never make any connections. I could tell you that Cyrus McCormick invented the mechanical reaper, but didn't realize until a few years ago that the American and French Revolutions happened a few years apart! Plus I don't think the United States is God's special country, or that math problems need to be Christian-ized.

 

Maybe textbooks have their place, but for content subjects, it seems like there are so many more interesting and effective ways to learn things: living books, documentaries, field trips, projects...I would be inclined to use a textbook as a quick narrative read fleshed out with real books.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

OP, it seems to me that there are three somewhat different issues within your thread.

 

1.  Can textbooks in general be useful/helpful/accurate?

 

2.  Are the BJU science textbooks in particular useful/helpful/accurate (especially the most recently updated ones)?

 

3.  Even if the updated BJU textbooks are useful/helpful/accurate, would it bother you to purchase from a company with the past issues mentioned up thread?

 

 

To the first question, yes, I think textbooks can be useful/helpful and even accurate (as accurate as a textbook format can be). If you find one that you think is interesting and speaks to you and you have the money to spend, then certainly I say pursue it.  In fact, I think many, many homeschoolers have found ways to use textbooks successfully in their homeschooling to varying degrees and I don't think textbooks should just be dismissed out of hand.

 

To the second question, there are those who will say no and those who will say yes.  As you pointed out, the textbooks have been updated since the lawsuit and other issues were dealt with.  Perhaps the latest version is quite wonderful.  I couldn't say, having never seen the updated version.  It will almost certainly still be YEC and if that is your view, too, then it might be a very good fit for you and your family.

 

To the third question, that really is more of a personal preference/view/comfort zone situation.  You have read the specific reasons why many say no to BJU specifically because of past issues/views/practices of BJU and why others here have said those things are o.k. with them so I don't think you would be going into this blind.  You asked your question, you got some informative responses and now hopefully those responses will have helped you make a more informed decision.  Go with what speaks to your heart and mind.

 

I agree with you that if none of the negative posts raises red flags for you, you can always just buy it, read through it, and if it seems like a good fit with useful information then great, you have a winner.  I do think others would appreciate your review, as you mentioned you might post.  Having direct feedback from someone who has actually used a resource can be invaluable.

 

Good luck and best wishes, OP.  I hope you find something you and your kids really like.

[Janeway]

Textbooks are written by textbook writers....not experts or even lovers of the fields. They are written to keep a classroom busy and the information included is based on what the various departments of education decided would be included. 

 

I think books, like BJU, can be an exception to the rule because they are not written for a department of education. They are privately done and put out there. I personally like BJU. But most public school textbooks are awful. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Sorry - but I do not think reading Einstein's original papers is a very good way to teach physics.

Feynman's writings take a special place because the Feynman Lectures are, in effect, a textbook.

 

Reading the original works is best after a thorough grounding in the basics has been achieved. Expecting a student to master mechanics by reading Newton's writings is a completely unrealistic expectation. So, especially for physics, reading the original works is not a suitable way to learn, and reading the great physicists is rewarding for advanced undergraduates, not before.

 

I fail to understand what the term "living books" means in this content. How are the Feynman lectures, or Einstein's papers from 1905, "living books"?

 

ETA: It seems to be often forgotten that studying physics also encompasses acquiring a skill in problem solving. You would not use original papers to read about math instead of teaching a child to do math. Studying physics includes solving problems, and original papers even by the most brilliant scientists do absolutely nothing to teach this skill.

 

I'm talking about book like Feynman's The Pleasure of Finding Things Out and Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. don't go taking my post farther than I did or place it in a different context than I did.  I was replying to a poster concerned about giving her kids K-12 kids basic science, not mastering Physics at the highest levels. Yes, I know you teach it at advanced levels.  I wasn't giving you advice for your students. You most certainly can read his section on "What is Science" to kid and give him or her a very important perspective on what the scientific thought process is in an understandable way for kid. There are other examples of it.  I never said it was the only way to master it and I never said to use it in complete isolation.  Again, don't go farther with my reply than I did.

 

Living books isn't a concept owned and managed by Charlotte Mason.  She didn't invent the concept out of avoid.  It's very much related to the Great Books concepts too.  When the greatest minds write or communicate in engaging writings (as substitute for speaking) or speaking, it brings it alive. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

They're old. After spending years on this forum, I've come to understand that living books = books more than fifty years old, even if they're so boring and dry as to be unreadable and completely inaccurate.

 

Then you're getting a very narrow view from a particular subset of people who advocate the use of living books.  I know some of them.  Anything published in the 20th century or later is demon spawn to them because it's from the progressive era when American supposedly stopped being godly.

[marisolstice]

Back with a few more thoughts on textbooks for math and literature...if you are going to use them, either the parent needs to instruct the student along with using a text, or the text needs to be written to the student. My experience (and several of my friends growing up) with A Beka and Saxon math was to be handed the book, sent off to do 40 problems or whatever, and then have to  try to figure out what went wrong with the 20 problems we got wrong. It was sink or swim, and a lot of us sank :( I'm using Ray's, Strayer Upton, and Miquon with my kids, with plenty of direct instruction. Obviously we aren't very far along with my oldest in 3rd grade, but so far I think SU is the type of text an average kid could use to self-teach pretty well. Not so with A Beka! And I don't think they could teach themselves with Ray's either.

 

[Not criticizing my parents here; this was the 80s, curriculum was expensive, and there was no internet!] 

 

And literature...I used to get so ticked off to read one chapter from some classic book, and then a snippet from another...I kept waiting to get to the real books, but never did. I don't even understand having a textbook for literature--again, maybe it works in a classroom with a teacher to lead group discussions, but why on earth not just hand your kid the whole book, read, and discuss? I did have a fabulous spanish lit community college class, and kept my textbook from that class, but that was due to an amazing professor, not an amazing textbook.

 

Anyway, I don't have much BTDT experience yet, but that's my second-gen homeschooler experience ;)

[HS Mom in NC]

 When you want real depth and breadth you have to bulk up even the best textbooks with living books and related enriching experiences. 

 

If you're going to reply to me do it after rereading this sentence several times.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why? Why? Why?

 

Besides personal views or thoughts about the company, please give me a good explanation of why not to choose BJU. Based on the actual material, content, and facts.

 

 

 

They are just full of misinformation.

 

There is the relation of political systems to evolution.(Communism is another example of God-denying evolutionary thinking.)

 

There is saying that efforts to reduce CO2 emmisions may mean we can't produce as much food.

 

Scientists think some dinosaurs may have breathed fire. (Um, no they don't.)

 

Environmentalists are out to destroy the economy.

 

Then there is just not actually explaining things and saying, essentially "God made them that way for his own purposes."

[Bluegoat]

Please explain to me how someone who hadn't read a physics textbook is even going to begin to understand any of Einstein's papers. Not to mention that while Einstein was certainly one of the most brilliant minds to ever live, his papers are really dry, as most scientific papers written for specialists tend to be. If I want my daughter to learn evolution, I'm going to have her read Campbell's Biology, not The Origin of Species, because the former is fascinating, and the latter would put any high school student straight to sleep and wouldn't provide anything close to a thorough overview of the topic.

 

Good textbooks are not "the short end of the stick." They're a necessary and often enjoyable step in almost every field of study. 

 

The CM method is interesting, but the ideas break down once you get beyond early elementary.

 

I think that's quite unfair.  If you use what she said about elementary education later on for high school students, yeah, it wont be all that effective.

[HomeAgain]

FWIW, I find this to be an often referenced book on our shelf.  It's centered around history, but the various critical thinking techniques in the book for helping subjects come alive is invaluable to me during the upper grades.  Teaching What Really Happened: How To Avoid The Tyranny Of Textbooks And Get Students Excited About Doing History.